Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabila Jamshed

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. The arguments by the anonymous IPs are welcome, but don't do anything for the established notability criteria. --Coredesat 06:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nabila Jamshed

Nabila Jamshed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO - only one reference by a secondary source; coverage not sufficient to establish notability; book is only available within a limited number of bookstores in India (apparently three, only in New Delhi), not available online. Note that this AFD also covers her book. WLU 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both No listing on Amazon for author, article fails to assert notability. Also, articles creator user name is an acronym of Wish Upon A Time (the book above) so looks like WP:COIPedro |  Chat  11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. No evidence that author or book meets the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. Although Amazon listings are irrelevant in this matter - even if there were no copies in existence outside of India, were it notable in India it would pass WP:N - I don't see that it is notable in India. Being for sale in three local bookstores is not notable. --Charlene 12:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not assert the subjects notability (no awards, press coverages, etc.) and lacks any references or sources to back up the article. Ozgod 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both. Notability is not established. Per WP:BK we would like to see that The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. It is conceivable this book could become a runaway success, and get widespread attention in the press, in which case we might re-evaluate, and the article could be re-created. Not much time has passed since the release of the book in late June. A complaint was filed at WT:AN about someone tampering with the comments of other editors in this AfD. WLU has restored the original comments. EdJohnston 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The AfD templates were removed on both pages earlier today by an anon IP out of India. Reverted. WLU

[edit] Separate section for extra-long comment

KEEP1. The Issue of Distribution - 50 copies were sold within a few hours of the launch. The book is in the process of being distributed, and this is the reason it is available in limited locations. The locations mentioned in the official blogs, for those who may be less informed, are markets, not stores, that stored the book till the date of that post. The current information suggests the book is available to everybody in Delhi and beyond.

P.S. Eragon, a literary success, was not distributed even across the United States bookstores for nearly a year because Paolini had the book printed, not published. Wikipedia would be naive to let that pass for not complying with rules.

2. Media Attention - Please review the recent chnages to the article. You will find that media coverage is extensive and ongoing. Evidence of all cannot be provided, because, you will no doubt be surprised to learn, everything is Not available on the internet.

3. Online Stores - Availibility in online stores does not suggest notability of the published work. Not all notable work is available on Amazon.. and everyone is at liberty to put up any irrelevant and insignificant material for sale on it.

4. TWUAT - he acronym WUAT could also mean the creator of the article is a fan.

5. Notability of the author - The author is a nineteen year old girl. That by itself is notable for a country that has rarely, if ever, seen published teenage writers. Please also see Nabila Jamshed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.167.192 (talk • contribs)

I removed the extra bold formatting added by the anonymous contributor 122.162.167.192 (talk · contribs). By tradition, in Articles for Deletion debates, only the actual votes (Keep, Delete, etc.) are put in bold. There is a bot that counts the votes which depends on the bold formatting being in the right place. Please note that, if you want Wikipedia to maintain an article on you, it helps to be somewhat respectful of our processes. Violating our policies (as in the comment-tampering noted above) is not a smart way to begin. EdJohnston 21:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. 50 copies is hardly a sufficient number to assure notability, and irrespective this would need to be documented in a reliable source. Blogs are not reliable sources.
2. The book and author's bio page are two different things, though currently both are being reviewed in this AFD. The addition of a single extra source does increase it's chances of remaining (note to those who have already voted - there is a new source on both pages here) - more sources like this would definitely increase all articles chances of surviving AFD, though currently I'm not changing my vote.
3. Correct, on-line availability does not establish notability, reliable sources do. However, unlike amazon, wikipedia has policies to ensure that people are not "...at liberty to put up any irrelevant and insignificant material."
4. WUAT could mean, but it suggests COI - lacking proof, no action is taken but Wuat should be aware of our policies on the matter
5. Notability is established by multiple reliable sources, not novelty - read the policies people are citing as relevant (WP:BIO, WP:BOOK, WP:AFD, WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:TALK) as THAT determines if the article is deleted, not freakshow, gee-whiz, feel-good or wunderkind potential. This applies to Christopher Paolini - his notability was established by multiple sources documenting his success, not by writing an enormous and terrible Eragon at a young age. And what rules are being referred to? The Nabila Jamshed page is what we are discussing on this AFD, the book is piggy-backing on the AFD because both have the same problems. WLU 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP - Firstly, everybody, 50 copies within a few gours of the launch is quite remarkable for a debut novel. How can any evidence be provided if there is none availible online?

Secondly, please view the references section, a few more have been added. Since the novel has only just been launch 13 days ago, not all the reviews etc have come in yet, neither has the data for sales. They will be put up whenever they are published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.50.188 (talk • contribs)

50 copies in a few hours is hardly remarkable. References to print media are acceptable, which you would know if you had read WP:RS as has been suggested several times.

I looked over the references, my comments can be found on the talk pages. Several were duplicates of the same coverage, I still don't think the article should stay on wikipedia. Note that if more references can be found, or if the book receives more attention after it is deleted, the page can be re-created (though you would do well to re-create it on a sub-page and ask some of the reveiwers or an admin for their opinion on if it meets WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY, otherwise it will be deleted again). WLU 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep By Indian publishing standards, the sale of 60 copies on the launch date is considered a bestseller. Therefore, 50 copies is remarkable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.20.179 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.